Maybe we should just start a The World Has Gone Mad thread

[Ben]

George Santos: first openly trans-electable member of Congress.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/12/27/george-santos-okay-i-lied-about-almost-everything-n520147

Santos identified as having a job history and educational credentials that cisnormative transphobes in the press say he doesn't really have. Also, he was married to a woman until a couple of years ago, but now says he's homosexual. (Then again, maybe he or his "wife" identified as another gender at the time.)

All of these things made him more electable in 2022. He is trans-electable, and the haters just can't deal.

Wow, this guy is really something:

https://youtu.be/eokyXhOPkng

[Pb]

Gen. Lee was not a traitor.  He resigned from the US Army.  His state left the Union.  He was no longer a citizen of the United States, and thus could not betray it.  He was a citizen of the CSA.  He could no more be a traitor to the USA than a citizen of Spain.

Gen. Lee was no more of a traitor than General Washington, who was a former British officer.  Both fought for the independence of their countries after they succeeded from the mother country.  If Lee was a traitor, so was Washington.

I do not agree with much of the reason the CSA was formed (the expansion of slavery), but I do support the right of succession in general.  I have never seen anything in the Constitution that forbids it.  The Right of Succession is another safeguard against an abusive central government.... or at least it would be, if it had not been killed.  If sections the country are unable to get along with the rest, they should be able to leave.  Forcing them to stay in perpetuity is tyrannical.

[Pb]

deleted

[dogmush]

Gen. Lee was no more of a traitor than General Washington, who was a former British officer.  Both fought for the independence of their countries after they succeeded from the mother country.  If Lee was a traitor, so was Washington.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

It should be noted that Gen Lee did not agree the Constitution allowed for secession. at least in 1861. 

In any case, both Washington and Lee were rebels and traitors against their government.  In Washington's case he won, so he could claim to be a citizen of the USA afterwards, but the same is untrue of the Confederates.  It takes nothing from either man to be honest about their rebellion against their governments.

It might be an interesting discussion to talk about the various Oaths Officers have taken through the years, and how one could get out of it.

[Pb]

In any case, both Washington and Lee were rebels and traitors against their government.  In Washington's case he won, so he could claim to be a citizen of the USA afterwards, but the same is untrue of the Confederates. 

The difference between a traitor and non-traitor is not whether you win or lose, it is weather you are a citizen of the country you are fighting against.  Because the CSA lost the war, it does not mean it did not exist.

Robert Lee was not a US Citizen.

[dogmush]

I do not believe that to be the case.  The US didn't strip him of citizenship until after Appomattox,  and I have never seen any evidence that he renounced it.

Indeed, whether the CSA was actually a nation was the whole point of the war, one that would seem to have been answered in the negative.

I don't think it can honestly be argued that the army of the CSA was not in open rebellion against the United States. If you are rebelling against your government,  you are committing treason.

[Pb]

I do not believe that to be the case.  The US didn't strip him of citizenship until after Appomattox,  and I have never seen any evidence that he renounced it.

Indeed, whether the CSA was actually a nation was the whole point of the war, one that would seem to have been answered in the negative.

I don't think it can honestly be argued that the army of the CSA was not in open rebellion against the United States. If you are rebelling against your government,  you are committing treason.

The CSA wasn't rebelling against their own government, because they had one of their own, and were no longer part of the old one.

Robert Lee wasn't a citizen, not because he renounced his citizenship, but because he became a citizen of a new nation.

The point of the war from the Union side was to destroy the CSA and force them back in the USA.  The fact that the CSA lost, and was destroyed doesn't mean they were not a country in those few years.  They held territory.  They had the loyalty of the large majority of their citizens.  They had governments, legislatures, laws, courts, taxation, police, army, navy and so on.  It functioned exactly like a country because it was one, and denying it doesn't make sense.

I can't see how we are going to come to terms on this one, so I think we are going to just need agree to disagree.

[kgbsquirrel]

The difference between a traitor and non-traitor is not whether you win or lose, it is weather you are a citizen of the country you are fighting against.  Because the CSA lost the war, it does not mean it did not exist.

Robert Lee was not a US Citizen.

And after 1958 the arguments became irrelevant via act of Congress that declared all Confederate veterans to be U.S. Veterans.

[RoadKingLarry]

The difference between a traitor and non-traitor is not whether you win or lose, it is weather you are a citizen of the country you are fighting against.  Because the CSA lost the war, it does not mean it did not exist.

Robert Lee was not a US Citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZtSLO4tsH0

[dogmush]

The point of the war from the Union side was to destroy the CSA and force them back in the USA.

This is simply untrue.  The US held for the entirety of the war that secession was unconstitutional, and that the south was still part of the US, and in open rebellion.  That's why Lincoln felt he could make proclamations that affected residents of the south.  The Johnson administration's official policy was also that there was no CSA, and that the states had been "lately in rebellion".

Indeed, Lee himself admitted in his 1865 oath to support the constitution that the South had been in rebellion.

You could make the argument that the CSA had all the trappings of a country, and indeed it had the recognition of several foreign governments.  It's not the first time that has happened in the history of the world, but as far as the US is concerned, the CSA was never a country, and the US spent a fair bit of blood and treasure proving that.  So, no, the US does not agree that Lee was no longer a citizen, he was a US citizen until the US stripped the Confederate leaders of their rights after Appomattox.  That's why he was indicted for treason.  The indictment was only dropped because it violated the terms of the surrender.

You are mistaken here as a matter of historical record.

  And after 1958 the arguments became irrelevant via act of Congress that declared all Confederate veterans to be U.S. Veterans.

Most of the Confederates had their rights restored in 1865 due to Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation and most of the rest got full amnesty in 1868 when Johnson issued a full pardon for those who had taken part in the "rebellion".  It was only those big names (like Davis and Lee) that had been indicted for treason in 1865 that didn't get the 1868 pardon.  Lee had made an application and swore an oath to the Constitution in 1865 in an attempt to get amnesty, but the paperwork disappeared for many years, so that Lee was not a full US citizen well past his death.  It wasn't until an act of congress in 1975 that Lee's full citizenship was retroactively restored.

[MechAg94]

This is simply untrue.  The US held for the entirety of the war that secession was unconstitutional, and that the south was still part of the US, and in open rebellion.  That's why Lincoln felt he could make proclamations that affected residents of the south.  The Johnson administration's official policy was also that there was no CSA, and that the states had been "lately in rebellion".

Indeed, Lee himself admitted in his 1865 oath to support the constitution that the South had been in rebellion.

You could make the argument that the CSA had all the trappings of a country, and indeed it had the recognition of several foreign governments.  It's not the first time that has happened in the history of the world, but as far as the US is concerned, the CSA was never a country, and the US spent a fair bit of blood and treasure proving that.  So, no, the US does not agree that Lee was no longer a citizen, he was a US citizen until the US stripped the Confederate leaders of their rights after Appomattox.  That's why he was indicted for treason.  The indictment was only dropped because it violated the terms of the surrender.

You are mistaken here as a matter of historical record.

Most of the Confederates had their rights restored in 1865 due to Johnson's Amnesty Proclamation and most of the rest got full amnesty in 1868 when Johnson issued a full pardon for those who had taken part in the "rebellion".  It was only those big names (like Davis and Lee) that had been indicted for treason in 1865 that didn't get the 1868 pardon.  Lee had made an application and swore an oath to the Constitution in 1865 in an attempt to get amnesty, but the paperwork disappeared for many years, so that Lee was not a full US citizen well past his death.  It wasn't until an act of congress in 1975 that Lee's full citizenship was retroactively restored.

Your entire argument boils down to "the USA won". Goes back to the one who wins writes the history. 

Then again, we have always called it the Civil War.  Not quite the same as rebellion but pretty close.  I would argue the difference being that entire states of the union decided to break away as a state, not just a group of individuals. 

[Perd Hapley]

Your entire argument boils down to "the USA won". Goes back to the one who wins writes the history. 

Then again, we have always called it the Civil War.  Not quite the same as rebellion but pretty close.  I would argue the difference being that entire states of the union decided to break away as a state, not just a group of individuals.

Doesn't your argument boil down to "the Confederates said they were not a part of the US, so they were not"?

It was important to the framers of the US Constitution, and perhaps more important to opponents of secession, that that document was ratified not by the state governments, but by the people of each state. So there was an argument to be made that states could not leave the Union, because they were not the entities that agreed to it.

[dogmush]

Your entire argument boils down to "the USA won". Goes back to the one who wins writes the history. 

Yes and no.  The nuance here is that we are talking about Lee's US citizenship.  Everyone agrees he was a US citizen in early 1861, so how and when did he lose it is important as that will be the crux of the original question Pb and I were discussing: Did Gen Lee commit treason against the US.

There are generally two ways you can get rid of citizenship.  You can renounce it formally, or it can be stripped by the country.  Case in point:  I was born in Italy and had dual citizenship until I was an adult.  I needed to formally renounce Italian citizenship to get my security clearance.  Simply joining the US Army didn't do it.

But back to Lee:  There's no evidence he ever renounced his US citizenship.  Indeed it would have been out of character for him as he considered himself a Virginian first than an American.  We know the US government didn't do anything formal until after Appomattox because there are records of that.  So after his resignation from the US Army, when he took up arms as commander of the Provisional Army of Virginia in Spring of 1861, how could he be anything other than a US citizen committing treason against the US Government.  Hell the the Provisional Army wasn't even folded into the Confederate Army for a couple months after that.

Also, I repeat, Lee himself said several times that secession was nothing but rebellion.  And if you are under arms in a rebellion, you are kinda by definition committing treason on the government you are rebelling against.

That's the No part.  As to the Yes part, I feel like "the US won" is a pretty compelling argument since what the US won was the question of; "Can US states form their own country and leave?"  The answer is "No, they can not."  Since the US won, and secession is unconstitional, those states were not a country, but rather states in rebellion against the government.  None of this was even controversial until the 1930's or so when a CSA public relations push was made.


Gen Lee is simultaneously a gifted US Army Officer, a successful Superintendent of West Point,  a traitor to the United States, the cause of tens of thousands of US Army casualties, a slave owner, and by all accounts an honorable man.  Thus the confusion on his legacy.

[dogmush]

Gen Lee, for one, was clear eyed about what he was doing:

As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled

https://loa-shared.s3.amazonaws.com/static/pdf/Lee_Evils_of_Anarchy.pdf

[MechAg94]

Doesn't your argument boil down to "the Confederates said they were not a part of the US, so they were not"?

It was important to the framers of the US Constitution, and perhaps more important to opponents of secession, that that document was ratified not by the state governments, but by the people of each state. So there was an argument to be made that states could not leave the Union, because they were not the entities that agreed to it.

Seems like an odd legal argument.  Some states seceded by popular referendum.  It wasn't all just state legislatures voting.  I haven't looked at how the CSA govt was ratified after that. 

I was under the impression some Founding Fathers expected a revolution from time to time and thought it was a good thing. 

[Perd Hapley]

I was under the impression some Founding Fathers expected a revolution from time to time and thought it was a good thing.

Speaking of odd legal arguments...

That doesn't mean they expected the people in charge to just say, "oh, OK, go ahead and have a revolution, then. We're fine with it."

[MechAg94]

Speaking of odd legal arguments...

That doesn't mean they expected the people in charge to just say, "oh, OK, go ahead and have a revolution, then. We're fine with it."

That may be true, but I doubt they would get too worked up over the citizenship of a failed revolutionary or the terminology of the event 150 years after it happened except perhaps as it applied to their discussions on the philosophy of govt.   

[Perd Hapley]

That may be true, but I doubt they would get too worked up over the citizenship of a failed revolutionary or the terminology of the event 150 years after it happened except perhaps as it applied to their discussions on the philosophy of govt.   

If you've read the writings of some of the Founders, you know they just loved bickering over fine points of doctrine. Loved it.

[Perd Hapley]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/21/heart-failure-kills-body-positivity-activist-at-37/

Jamie Lopez, the founder of a Las Vegas salon for plus-size women and a model for the “body positivity” movement, died last weekend at age 37.

[WLJ]

https://thefederalist.com/2022/12/21/heart-failure-kills-body-positivity-activist-at-37/

At her heaviest, Lopez weighed 846 pounds and designed her company while confined to bed. She lost 400 pounds to turn her dream into reality.

She lost 2x my weight and was still over 4x overweight, Yeah, that's healthy.   

[Perd Hapley]

George Santos: first openly trans-electable member of Congress.

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/12/27/george-santos-okay-i-lied-about-almost-everything-n520147

Santos identified as having a job history and educational credentials that cisnormative transphobes in the press say he doesn't really have. Also, he was married to a woman until a couple of years ago, but now says he's homosexual. (Then again, maybe he or his "wife" identified as another gender at the time.)

All of these things made him more electable in 2022. He is trans-electable, and the haters just can't deal.

I just realized - he's also trans-homosexual. Sure, he was "assigned heterosexual" at one point in his life, but he made the stunning and brave choice to be the homosexual he's always been. And you better not mis-sexuality him, bigot.

[Pb]

There are generally two ways you can get rid of citizenship.  You can renounce it formally, or it can be stripped by the country.  Case in point:  I was born in Italy and had dual citizenship until I was an adult.  I needed to formally renounce Italian citizenship to get my security clearance.  Simply joining the US Army didn't do it.

There is a third way to lose your citizenship.  It is when the place you live forms a new country, making you a citizen of the new country.  I understand your points, and respect them, but do not agree.

I am admirer of both Lee and Grant.  Both fought honorably in defense of their countries as they saw it.  Both were great men.

I do not admire Lincoln or Davis.  Either once could have avoided bloodshed, but each worked to make it happen to further other goals.  It was the worst tragedy that the USA has ever experienced and it was avoidable.  Neither of them were willing to avoid fighting.

I am a strong supporter of the right to secession (though not the CSA).  If states could leave at will, it is likely the Federal Government would have to moderate its behavior and be less power mad.

[dogmush]

I am a strong supporter of the right to secession (though not the CSA).  If states could leave at will, it is likely the Federal Government would have to moderate its behavior and be less power mad.

Perhaps fed.gov would have to moderate a little if there were a right to secession,  but evidence would seem to indicate there is not.

[kgbsquirrel]

Perhaps fed.gov would have to moderate a little if there were a right to secession,  but evidence would seem to indicate there is not.

The Articles are silent on secession thus the 10th amendment is in effect and the powers to do so are retained by the People and the several States.

[RoadKingLarry]

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,